A replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare by perusinge whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weake, and vnstable groundes of the Romaine religion, whiche of late hath beene accompted Catholique. By Iohn Iewel Bishoppe of Sarisburie.

The B. of Sarisburie.

Here M. Hardinge complaineth, wée doo him wronge, to allege this Canon against him: for that he beléeueth euen as Gelasius did, that whole Christe is in eche parte of the Sacrament. It is very muche to allege Gelasius faithe with∣out his woordes: or to founde any new faithe, as this is, without some kinde of proufe. This is M. Hardinges grosse errour, and not Gelasius, or any o∣ther of the Catholike Fathers faithe. If the holy Fathers had so beléeued, they had woordes, and were hable to vtter it. If this had beene the faithe of the Catholike Churche, it had not beene keapte so longe in silence.

As for Gelasius,* 1.1 his owne woordes are sufficiente to declare his faithe. Thus he writeth against Nestorius, and E••tyches: Sacramenta, quae sumimus, Corporis, & Sanguinis Christi, diuinae res ••unt: propter quod & per eadem diuinae efficimur consortes naturae. Et tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura Panis & Vini. The Sacramentes of Christes Body and Bloud that wee receiue, are a godly thinge, and there∣fore by the same wee are made partakers of the diuine nature. yet there letteth not to be the substance or nature of Breade and Wine. This was Gelasius faithe touching these portions of the Sacrament.

Now hath M. Hardynge diuised an other Mysterie of the woonderful con∣iunction of God and Man in Christe: whereof Gelasius spake not one woorde in this place, neither was it any thinge to his purpose, to speake of it. Bisides this, he imagineth Gelasius to geue a law, that no man shoulde diuide that Mysterie, whereas it neuer lay in the power of man to diuide it. Neither had that béene a diuision, but an vtter dissolution of the Mysterie.

Thus so he may seeme to saye somewhat, he weigheth not greately what he saye, examininge eche thinge as S. Augustine saithe,* 1.2 Non in sta••era aequa diuina∣rum Scripturarum, sed in statera dolosa Consuetudinum suarum, Not in the iuste balance of the holy Scriptures, but in the deceitful and false beames of his owne customes.

Of the Cuppe he maketh the Breade: Of the Breade he maketh the Cuppe: Of one he maketh bothe: Of bothe he maketh one: Of one Mysterie he maketh an o∣ther: and thus they deale, euen as Irenaeus* 1.3 writeth of the Heretique Ualentinus. Ordinem & textum scripturarum supergredientes, & quantum in ipsis est, soluentes, mē∣bra veritatis tranferunt, & transfingunt, & alterum ex altero facientes: seducunt multos, ex his quae aptant ex Dominicis eloquijs malè composito phantasmati. Ouerrenninge the order and texte of the Scriptures, and as muche, as in them lieth, dismembring the lymmes of the trueth, they alter and transpose maters, and makinge one thinge of an other, they deceiue many, by that they geather out of the Lordes woordes, and ioyne to their il fauoured phantasie.

The Mysterie whereof Gelasius speaketh, is the holy Sacrament, whiche al be it it stande of two partes, yet is it one Sacrament, and not twoo. The Ma∣nichées diuided the same, takinge one parte, and leauinge the other: And this is it, that Gelasius calleth Sacrilege.

Here it is further surmised, that Leo, and Gelasius, by their Decrées, restoa∣red the Catholike people againe to the vse of Bothe Kindes. This is vtterly vn∣true. And may be gheassed by M. Hardinge, but cannot any way be prooued.

The Decrées of Leo, and Gelasius, be abroade, and may be knowen. But where are these Decrees? In what Bookes are they written? Or who euer made mention of them? Uerely these godly Fathers reprooued the Manichées for their Sacrilege, and not the Catholikes: and commaunded suche as had offended, to correcte their faultes, and not suche as were faultlesse.

But how coulde the Manichees haue beene knowen (saith M. Hardinge) Onlesse the Catholike people amonge whom they receiued, had Communicate in One Kinde? This question is out of course. I might better saye, Nay how coulde the Manichees haue beene knowen, if they and the Catholikes had receiued in One Kinde bothe a like? For this is the token that Leo woulde haue them knowen by: Sanguinē redemptionis nostrae haurire detrectant. They refuse to drinke the Bloud of our Redemption. By these woordes it is cleare, that the Cuppe was offred orderly vnto them, as vnto others: but they refused it.

Thou séest, good Christian Reader, that M. Harding notwithstandinge he be driuen to leaue his owne fellowes, to shifte one Mysterie for an other, to imagine new lawes, and new Decrées, that were neuer hearde of, to change him selfe into sundrie formes, and to séeke al manner hoales to créepe out at, yet at laste hath founde by the authoritie of Leo, whom he him selfe allegeth, that the Catholike people receiued y^e whole Communion vnder Bothe Kindes, accordinge to Christes Institution: and that the patrones and founders of his halfe Communion, were olde wicked Heretiques, named the Manichées: that the same is the diuision of one whole intiere Mysterie: and therefore by the authoritie of Gelasius may wel be called open Sacrilege.

Now to shew, what might be saide of our side, were labour infinite. For our Doctrine taketh no authoritie of Priuate Folke, of Wemen, of Forcelettes, of Naptkins, of Sicke Bodies, of Deathe Beddes, of Miracles, of Fables, of Chil∣dren, and of Madde men: whiche be the onely groundes of al that M. Hardinge séemeth hitherto hable to say: But of Christes Institution, of the Scriptures, of y^e Practise of the Apostles, of the vsage of the Primitiue Churche, of olde Canons, of auncient Councels, of Catholike Fathers, Gréekes, and Latines Olde, and New: euen of Clemens, Abdias, and Amphilochius,* 1.4 whiche are M. Hardinges peculiar Doctours. S. Chrysostome saithe, In the receiuing of the holy Mysteries there is no difference betweene Priest and people. Dionysius saith, The vnitie of the Cuppe is diui∣ded vnto al. Ignatius saith, One Cuppe is diuided vnto the whole Churche. S. Au∣gustine saith, Wee drinke al togeather, bicause wee liue al togeather. But to recken vp the authorities of antiquitie, as I saide, it woulde be infinite.

The Scholastical Doctours of very late yeres haue séene and testified, that M. Hardinges doctrine is but new.* 1.5 Thomas of Aquine saithe, In quibusdam Ecclesiis prouidè obseruatur, vt populo Sanguis non detur: In certaine Churches it is prouidently ob∣serued, that the Bloud be not geuen to the people. In certaine Churches, he saith: Not in al Churches.

Likewise Durandus:* 1.6 In multis locis Communicatur cum Pane, & Vino, id est, cum toto Sacramento. In many places they Communicate with Breade and Wine, that is to say, with the whole Sacrament. In many places,* 1.7 he saith: but not in al places. Like∣wise Alexander de Hales, a great Schole Doctour: Ita ferè vbi{que} a laicis fit in Ecclesia. Thus the lay people in the Churche for the moste parte doo. For the moste parte, he saithe: but not in al partes. And Linwoode in his Prouincialles:* 1.8 Solis celebrantibus san∣guinem sub specie vini consecrati sumere, in huiusmodi minoribus Ecclesiis est concessum. It is graunted onely vnto the Priestes that celebrate in suche smal Churches, to receiue the Bloud vnder the forme of Wine. He excepteth onely the smal Countrie Churches, not the greater Churches in Cities and Townes. Al these Doctours liued within the space of three hundred yeres paste. So longe it was before M. Hardinges Doctrine coulde growe general.

Antoninus saith,* 1.9 that Kinge William the Conquerour, that liued a thousande yeres after Christe, caused his whole armie to Communicate, and that as y^e order was then,* 1.10 vnder Bothe Kindes. Haimo that was not longe before him, saithe, Appellatur Calix Communicatio, propter participationem: quia omnes Communicant ex illo. The Cuppe is called the Communication, bicause of the participation, for that euery man receiueth of it. Thus is our doctrine confirmed, not onely by the Olde Doctours, but also by the New.

Wherefore M. Harding thus mainteining the open abuse of the holy Mysteries, offendeth against Christes Institution, against the Scriptures, against the per∣fection of the Sacrament, against the Confirmation of the New Testament, a∣gainst the Tradition and practise of the Apostles, against the ancient Councels, against the Canons, against the Doctours, bothe Olde and New. The Apostles of Christe beinge ful of the holy Ghost, so tooke Christes woordes, as wée take them now.* 1.11 And S. Hierome saith, Quicun{que} aliter Scripturam intelligit, quàm sen∣sus spiritus sancti flagitat, quo conscripta est, licet de Ecclesia non recesserit, tamen Haere∣ticus appellari potest. Who so euer vnderstandeth the Scriptures, otherwise then the sense of the holy Ghost requireth, by whiche holy Ghost the Scriptures were written, although he be not yet departed from the Churche, yet he may wel be called an Heretique. If M. Harding wil say,* 1.12 that was true then, and this is true nowe, then may wée answeare him, as S. Hilarie did the Arrians, Veritas ergo temporum erit magis, quàm Euangeliorū. Then truthe must be as pleaseth the time, not as pleaseth the Gospel. And further, as S. Augustine answeared the Donatistes,* 1.13 Si aliud declamas, aliud recitas, nos post vocem Pastoris nostri, per ora Prophetarum, & os proprium, & per ora Euangelistarum, nobis apertissimè declaratam, voces vestras non admittimus, non credimus, non accipimus. If ye Preache any otherwise, or tel vs any other tale, after wee haue once hearde the voice of our Shephearde, most plainely declared vnto vs by the mouthes of his Prophetes, by his owne mouthe, ••nd by the mouthes of his Euangelistes, touching your voices, wee take them not, we beleeue them not, wee receiue them not.

But for as muche, as this is a Mysterie of vnitie, God graunte vnto vs suche humilitie of minde, that wée may al submitte our selues vnto his Holy Woorde, that wée may ioyne togeather in holy and perfit vnitie, and as I alleged before out of S. Cyprian,* 1.14 By his aduertisement redresse that thinge, wherein certaine haue erred: That when he shal come in his glorie, and in his heauenly Maiestie, he may finde vs to holde that he warned vs: to keepe, that he taught vs: to doo, that he did. Amen.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Gelasius contra Eutychem.
• * 1.2

  August. contra Epist. Parmeni∣ani. li. 3. ca. 2.
• * 1.3

  Irenaeus li. 1.
• * 1.4

  Chrysostom. in. ••. Cor. ho. 18. Eccl. Hiera. Ca. 3 Ignatius ad▪ Philadelphien. De Con. dist. 2. Quia passus.
• * 1.5

  Thom. par. 3. q. 80. ar. 12.
• * 1.6

  Durand. li. 4. cap. 42.
• * 1.7

  Alexan. par. 4. q. 55. m. 1.
• * 1.8

  Lynwoode de sum. trini. & Fide Catholi.
• * 1.9

  Antoninus.
• * 1.10

  Haimo in. 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.11

  Hi••rony. ad Ga∣lat. li. 3. ca. 5.
• * 1.12

  Hilarius ad Constantium August.
• * 1.13

  Augustin. de vnitate Eccle. Ca. 11.
• * 1.14

  Cyprian. ad Cae∣cilium, lib. 2. 1 p•••••• 3.